About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
CSPAN 3
KQED (PBS) 2
WETA 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
in a proxy war supported by iran and russia. the other side of the debate is nothing else is working and we need to create pressure on assad and build relationship with people inside syria who might take over one day. another factor is there are rebels, al-qaeda affiliated rebels the united states and the west doesn't support. and i don't think it's in the west's interest to see them end up at the top of the heap. >> rose: and then we turn to the story of the chinese army spying on the american government and american companies with david sanger of the "new york times," dune lawrence and michael riley of bloomberg businessweek. >> the cyber has been off to the side as something of an annoyance. i'm hearing this has gotten so big it's moving to the center of the relationship and it risks the rest of the relationship. i think the next thing you're going to see the president sending some kind of envoy to beijing to make that point. >> rose: the conflict in syria and spying on the united states by the chinese army when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios
of the cold war and more members from russia, even as george bush did, the former republic of the soviet union. into this alliance and you wonder why the russians are upset about that. and then finally clinton lost his nerve on things of this country needed to do in terms of international agreements. we need to be part of this be part of this ban on cluster bombs. all of the nations have signed these packs. it is what they call the rogue nations, and then we have the united states. then we get to george bush, and it is possible to talk about those eight years. the fact that this country reelected him does not say very much for any of us anywhere. always had misuse of intelligence to a certain degree. the mexican war in the 1840s, the spanish-american war. in vietnam as well. that was based on the misuse of intelligence. but you never had systematic distortion of intelligence the way that you had in the run-up to the iraqi war. you've never had someone tell the president it would be a slamdunk not help you make up your mind. but to help you convince the american people that we need to undertake
against a regime supported by iran and russia. on the other side of the debate the argument was well nothing else is working and we need to increase the pressure on assad and also build the relationship with the people inside syria who might take over one day. another factor is there are rebels jihaddists, al-qaeda rebels that the u.s. doesn't support. i don't want to see them at the top of the heap. >> rose: that's always the answer to the question people always ask. suppose you win what then. >> it's a good question. right now they're not winning. right now you have a situation where assad is pretty entrenched and the rebels are making gammons -- games but they don't seem to be decisive yet. >> rose: able to close the deal. >> not yet. so you're looking at a fairly drawn out conflict. one of the concerns people have is if the conflict is drawn out much longer, there won't be much left to hand over to oppose the assad regime. the whole mechanism and institutions of the state will have been destroyed. >> rose: let me make sure i understand. i have your piece in front of me and i
russia and the united states. it's not true any more. our intelligence has told us since 2007 that iran will have that nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. so it's other countries that are involved in that. the question i would ask you, in your book you wrote that we must once again convince the world that america has a clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament committee -- commitments that we have made. the question, a bit more recently you said, i believe providing necessary resources for a nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority. do you stand by your last statement? >> my last -- >> your last statement saying -- i believe that providing the necessary resources for nuclear modernization of the triad should be a national priority? >> absolutely should be. i agree with that. and that's what the policy of this administration is. >> well, i'm merely bringing out the inconsistency because when you were involved with supporting the global zero or whatever that group, the organization was, their declaration is, quote, we the undersigned belie
this movie. we're dealing with john mcclain and his son this time around. they're in russia and the action is like 50 minutes of the movie. that sells it. the problem is the bad guys. the first die hard and the third one had alan rickman and jeremy irons. those villains kept the movie afloat when it was not during action sequences. this one lacks a bad guy, which is great. so i gave it a three out of five. i stay say it's a good matinee. not the best die hard, but not the worst. "die hard 2" was terrible. interestingly enough, 18 years ago, i started collecting movie ticket stubs and the first stub i ever collected was "die hard 3". >> steve: three bucks to see the movie. >> three dollars. for some crazy reason, i booked bruce will police and jeremy irons, the bad guys from "die hard 3" on the same weekend. so i had to present them the stub and here is the video of their reaction. >> i saved my ticket stub. i want to show it to you. >> that's fantastic. >> look at the price of the ticket. three dollars back then. >> wow. that's the first stub i ever collected. >> look at that. >> i was li
disasters, especially in his first meeting with russia. >> we want to reset -- >> reporter: like his predecessor infamous misspelled reset button. >> we worked hard to get the right russian word. >> you got it wrong. >> reporter: kerry's photo op of the russian foreign minister was over in a minute. they seemed eager to get down to business. but when the cameras left kerry and sergei spent two hours together nearly half of which was devoted syria. >>> let's see if anything positive emerged from that meeting. we'll stay in touch with jill dougherty. let's get back to our top story. three days left to see if those forced spending cuts, $85 billion over the next seven months go into effect. our chief political analyst has been talking to senior administration officials. is there any progress being made at all to avert those cuts between now and friday? >> sure doesn't seem so. the senior administration officials i spoke with seem completely dug in on this. they are not having meetings with the house speaker or the republican leader in the senate. they told me that they believe that poli
africa -- more than africa or nigeria or russia will grow, you will be willing to take more risks there because you think the growth is there. to a certain extent, where you seek political upheaval, it scares away investment. the world is so competitive, if you do not focus on markets, if not ready to win in markets, you will lose. >> how much of this can be a parochial discussion? let us a ge is a u.s. company, but let us talk about the european or asian companies that may be interested in investing on this side of the world. what will the u.s. due to distinguish itself? >> investment certainty. we need some how not to have all of the focus on sequestration, debt limits. that is distracting to investors. the systems of competitiveness. education, regulation. tax reform. those things that say we want people to invest in the u.s. our f.d.i in the country has trailed a lot of other places in the world. some of it is education training. there are systems of competitiveness. we know what they are. it is trying to get more of a window on that. it also helps -- the president of the unit
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)